The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

objective, and the independent."—Hazen's Practical Gram., p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: "Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative."—Structure of E. Lang., p. 185. And yet his case after to or for is not "dative," but "accusative!"— Ib., p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: "the subjective,[164] the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Text-Book, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four: "the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."—Com. S. Gram., p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,—Wells, of Andover,— Weld, of Portland,—and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,—also adopt "four cases;—the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."—Wells's Gram., p. 57; Weld's, 60; Clark's, 49. The first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or pronoun, used independently, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a nominative." It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a nominative. He also cites this argument: "'Is there not as much difference between the nominative and [the] independent case, as there is between the nominative and [the] objective? If so, why class them together as one case?'—S. R. Hall."—Wells's School Gram., p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The nominative is that case which primely denotes the name of any person or thing;" (Burn's Gram., p. 36;) and this only it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids his readers, "See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck, Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith."—Page 57. But is the fourth case of these authors the same as his? Is it a case which "has usually the nominative form," but admits occasionally of "me" and "him," and embraces objective nouns of "time, measure, distance, direction, or place?" No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more, give little or no countenance to such an independent case as he has adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought two others "might be an improvement." What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton's "independent case" is only what he absurdly calls, "The noun or pronoun addressed."— Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge "the nominative case absolute;" and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps Goldsbury.

OBS. 7.—S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called "The Grammatical Assistant;" in which he says, "There are at least five cases, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from each other, as the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative, Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute."—P. 7. O. B. Peirce will have both nouns and pronouns to be used in five cases, which he thus enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case."—Gram., p. 42. But, on page 56th, he speaks of a "twofold subjective case," "the twofold objective case," and shows how the possessive may be twofold also; so that, without taking any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the six cases of the Latin Language, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's, Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm. Ward's, and the "Comprehensive Grammar," a respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but written by somebody in England.

OBS. 8.—Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be now in use, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The disputes of grammarians make no small part of the history of grammar; and in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to consider what degree of certainty there is in the rule, and what difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of nouns, Murray and Webster changed sides with each other; and that, long after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to each other. "What cases are there in English? The nominative, which usually stands before a verb; as, the boy writes: The possessive, which takes an s with a comma, and denotes property; as, John's hat: The objective, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors virtue, or it is an honor to him."—Webster's Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth Edition, 1800, p. 9. "But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one before, the other after the verb, are called cases. There are then three cases, the nominative, possessive, and objective."—Webster's Rudiments of Gram., 1811, p. 12. "In English therefore names have two cases only, the nominative or simple name, and the possessive."— Webster's Philosoph. Gram., 1807, p. 32: also his Improved Gram., 1831, p. 24.

OBS. 9.—Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English, substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or genitive."—Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition, 1796, p. 35. "For the assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. names which are sufficient to decide this point."—Ib., p. 36. "In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective."—Murray's Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition, 1816, p. 44. "The author of this work long doubted the propriety of assigning to English substantives an objective case: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind a full persuasion, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this comprehensive objective case."—Ib., p. 46. If there is any credit in changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better; but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine his subject before he goes to the printer. "This case was adopted in the twelfth edition of the Grammar."—Murray's Exercises, 12mo, N. Y., 1818, p. viii.

OBS. 10.—The possessive case has occasioned no less dispute than the objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of authority, that there is such a case, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it. "The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an adjective possessive; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the Latin genitive."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 5. Brightland also, who gave to adjectives the name of qualities, included all possessives among them, calling them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession."—Brightland's Gram., p. 90.

OBS. 11.—This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago, republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his Common School Gram., Part II, p. 104. In Felch's Grammar, too, published in Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being probably ignorant of them all. His reasoning upon the point, does not appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "This old man's daughter."—Shak. It may also govern an other possessive; as, "Peter's wife's mother."—Bible. Here the former possessive is governed by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun mother, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or number, agree with their nouns in these respects. Not so with possessives; as, "In the Jews' religion."—Gal., i. 13. "The children's bread."—Mark, vii, 27. "Some men's sins."—1 Tim., v, 24. "Other men's sins."—Ib., ver. 22.

OBS. 12.—Secondly, general custom has clearly determined that the possessive case of nouns is always to be written with an apostrophe: except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed jointly; as, "Cato the Censor's doctrine,"—"Sir Walter Scott's Works,"—"Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays." This custom of using the apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan, and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the possessive case should be formed like the nominative plural, by adding s when the pronunciation admits the sound, and es when the word acquires an additional syllable. Some of these approve of the apostrophe, and others do not. Thus Brightland gives some examples, which are contrary to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the s in Roman, and the name in Italic; "as, King Charles's Court, and St. James's Park."—Gram. of the English Tongue, p. 91.

OBS. 13.—"The genitive case, in my opinion," says Dr. Ash, "might be much more properly formed by adding s, or when the pronunciation requires it, es, without an Apostrophe: as, men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass, Asses."—Ash's Gram., p. 23. "To write Ox's, Ass's, Fox's, and at the same time pronounce it Oxes, Asses, Foxes, is such a departure from the original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other language."—Ib. Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: "It [i.e., 'God's grace'] was formerly written 'Godis grace;' we now always shorten it with an apostrophe; often very improperly, when we are obliged to pronounce it fully; as, 'Thomas's book,' that is, 'Thomasis book,' not 'Thomas his book,' as it is commonly supposed."—Lowth's Gram., p. 17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great to be relinquished. If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it cannot be done in this way. It is understood by every reader, that the apostrophic s adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, torch's, pronounced torchiz.

   "Yet time ennobles or degrades each line;
    It brightened Craggs's, and may darken thine."—Pope.

OBS. 14.—The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in es, examples of which may be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, "On Herodes dagum,"—"In Herod's days;"—"Of Aarones dohtrum,"—"Of Aaron's daughters."—Luke, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of the plural; and both were changed to is or ys, before they became what we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it, that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination 's was a contraction of the word his. It is certain that Addison thought so; for he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, "My paper is Ulysses his bow."—Guardian, No. 98. "Of Socrates his rules of prayer."—Spect., No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: "By young Telemachus his blooming years."—Lowth's Gram., p. 17.[166] There